Pope attacks Labours 'Equality' Law

[GommeInc]

These groups do not represent me, people do not need to belong to a Gay Group or have gay views simply because they are homosexual. These groups have heavy influence on the government and the modern-day Conservative Party;- nobody asked me if they represent me but it seems they are instantly to be the representation of homosexuals. They are militant and turn people against homosexuals, these groups who organise what I find poor taste parades to flaunt their sexuality in the face of others - that turns people against homosexuals, like it or not.



UKIP are an anti-EU group so I really don't know where you have got this idea from, theres no point/logic you are making here. It is very simple, these groups do not represent the majority and have far too much power over government. If homosexuality is to be accepted, people need to stop thinking of themselves as homosexuals and think of themselves as individuals.

They're not meant to represent just you, they're to represent their chosen causes - homosexuality, feminism, world peace etc. Not everyone agrees that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea, and judging by your logic, they should not exist because they do not represent everyone (failed logic and impossible, as to share the thoughts and beliefs of everyone is a reason a group should not exist) and should be elected, when they're just a group, not a party - parties and groups are two very different things as a group tends to follow one belief while a party has different ideas, beliefs and causes put forward to represent certain people with the goal to be elected as the main party :/ A group just exists to make aware of such causes, not run the country.

And again, you assume that all members of gay right movements are pro-gay pride which is a pretty unproductive parade which lost its meaning years ago and is just a glorified street party (though very good for local economies).

You seem transfixed on the idea that groups influence every decision the government make, when the purpose is awareness, not control. Not all groups are malicious, yet you suggest all groups are :/ I can see why people are a little tished off using these forums, you do like a good irrational moan

[-:Undertaker:-]

They're not meant to represent just you, they're to represent their chosen causes - homosexuality, feminism, world peace etc. Not everyone agrees that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea, and judging by your logic, they should not exist because they do not represent everyone (failed logic and impossible, as to share the thoughts and beliefs of everyone is a reason a group should not exist) and should be elected, when they're just a group, not a party - parties and groups are two very different things as a group tends to follow one belief while a party has different ideas, beliefs and causes put forward to represent certain people with the goal to be elected as the main party :/ A group just exists to make aware of such causes, not run the country.

The way this government panders to the minority in a sense means they run the country, they have far too big a influence on government policy and the government and the Conservative Party seem to be falling head over heels to pander to whatever the minority wants regardless of the majority.

Do David Cameron & Gordon Brown realise what fake clowns they appear to everyone when they appear in Attitude and so forth?

And again, you assume that all members of gay right movements are pro-gay pride which is a pretty unproductive parade which lost its meaning years ago and is just a glorified street party (though very good for local economies).

Oh course not, but parades seem to be a big part of it. These groups seem determined to flaunt their sexuality in everybodys face, that leads to extremism and hatred.

You seem transfixed on the idea that groups influence every decision the government make, when the purpose is awareness, not control. Not all groups are malicious, yet you suggest all groups are :/ I can see why people are a little tished off using these forums, you do like a good irrational moan

These groups do influence the decisions the government makes, and many of these groups have militant characteristics. I am sick to death of hearing gay groups, womens rights groups moaning about things such as 'lack of gays/women in highly paid jobs' - I detest political correctness and thats just another tangaent of it. They can air their opinions, i'm fine with that. But when a government starts putting these groups (such as the unelected Muslim Council of Great Britain) at the forefront of policy it breeds nothing but hatred for minorities because people get ticked off by it constantly being rubbed in their face.

Resorting to personal insults now to win your point over? - out of all the people I wouldn't expect it from you, but hey just shows peoples true colours I guess when they can't have their own way.

[Catzsy]

I have to say this makes me laugh. Doesn't anybody realise that gay clergy
have been in churches for decades. They have just not been able to say it publicy so what's the difference? I really think the Vatican should be more careful who they employ in other areas given their disastrous track record of
harbouring pedophiles who have ruined hundreds of chiuldrens' lives.

[Black_Apalachi]

I have to say this makes me laugh. Doesn't anybody realise that gay clergy
have been in churches for decades. They have just not been able to say it publicy so what's the difference? I really think the Vatican should be more careful who they employ in other areas given their disastrous track record of
harbouring pedophiles who have ruined hundreds of chiuldrens' lives.

The priest at our church is soooo gay!

[FlyingJesus]

It's common sense that someone who is more qualified and equipped for a job should have that job based on those principles and nothing else. All this crap about getting women or certain people in to do jobs for the sake of equality is stupid, irrational and a waste of time. So that's dismissed.

The Pope doesn't live in modern day society, he has no reason to meddle. We have computers and Google, he has the Bible and God.

Not quite sure why you attack the Pope when you essentially seem to be agreeing with what he's saying lol. Right done with you onto the main issue.


Equality for the sake of equality is a bad thing - people should be judged on their merits and offered opportunities that suit them rather than allowing people to get employment just because they happen to have been born black or female. Let's go through each of these ridiculous points:



Employment: kinda covered that above, but seems to make little sense in their wording. It's always been "legal" to employ a woman over a man or a black over a white if their qualifications match, so this change suggests that the legality means they cannot any longer employ the man/caucasian in this scenario, which is disgusting if true. If not, it bears very little implications and is just clever wording to make people happy about something that's already true. In the case of the church it does pose a problem I guess, as regardless of your own personal views on the clergy simple respect for their beliefs ought to show why they're worried - for them this law appears to be trying to force them to break their own holy laws.

Pay: I don't really care. If there's a difference in pay then let there be, most companies are private anyway so they're absolutely entitled to pay anyone whatever they feel like.

Deprivation: Another ridiculous law that won't mean anything. That is, the only way I can see it working is by excessive taxation, which won't be popular for anyone at all.

Age discrimination: I believe age discrimination is appropriate in emergency cases in hospitals, so I'm against this one. My grandmother is in hospital right now but I understand that she's in her 80s and if it came down to some far-fetched scenario where doctors can literally only save her or a young person then it's preferable to go for the one with a (hopefully) long life ahead of them. Equality gone too far again here.

Breastfeeding: Don't really care, I'm guessing it's quite easy just to not look.

Private member's clubs: A terrible idea frankly. They are private and as such should be allowed their own rules and regulations based on whatever they feel like basing them on. Men's clubs are a great thing in many communities and I'm sure women-only places are great for them too wherever they exist, and I don't think these institutions should be tampered with. It'll be interesting to see if they force this onto the Freemasons who (aside from some non-regulation groups who are not considered as Freemasons by the UGLE) do not allow women to join.

Disabilities: I have never seen or heard of anyone, disabled or not, being thrown out of a restaurant for eating messily. Extreme poor conduct is not the same thing, as some people do intentionally make trouble, but this one looks like just another stupid addition noted to make sure everyone gets mentioned. I disagree with the part about landlords having to make disabled access available in all homes though - it's simply not feasible in a lot of places and will put a lot more strain on the already weak housing market if people have to consider all of this before buying property.

[Richie]

most priests are gay, their the ones ******* little boys.... religion fails imo

[Wig44.]

most priests are gay, their the ones ******* little boys.... religion fails imo

Erm, what? You're pretty ignorant. That's a massive generalisation, and way to go to stereotype.

[Richie]

Erm, what? You're pretty ignorant. That's a massive generalisation, and way to go to stereotype.

ino ima ignorant person wot can I say.

[GommeInc]

The way this government panders to the minority in a sense means they run the country, they have far too big a influence on government policy and the government and the Conservative Party seem to be falling head over heels to pander to whatever the minority wants regardless of the majority.

Groups will always exist, that's my point. You went on some boring un-needed rant about how they run the country, when that's not necessarily a bad thing anyway :/ Infact, groups like this have changed the way we deal with certain events that the government paste over quite alot :/ You say unelected like they directly run the country, when they do not and that every group has an agenda to run the country, when they do not. Intervention from a third party isn't a necessary bad, look at how the media has shown the government up for being money hungry and useless when tackling problems and intervention from the public. Mums (usually) and family members who have made groups in protest of the war show the government up as being unaware with what happens in the war zone is another example of a group which shows no malice towards the country, infact alot of people agree with them saying the lack of supplies and poor treatment is appauling. Again, you narrow-mindedly focus on malicious groups, and assume all intervention groups are malicious, when this. is. not. the. case. and seems to be absent minded Daily Mail babble, where any minority should not exist, and that apparently Stephen Gately died because he was gay (mega lols towards the Mail for that shocker).

Oh course not, but parades seem to be a big part of it. These groups seem determined to flaunt their sexuality in everybodys face, that leads to extremism and hatred.

And it's the absent minded, dimwitted Daily Mail and other daft newspapers and small minded people who seem to believe that ALL members of any minority are the same. Just because Gay Pride, one of the countries most random events (not useless, just random) is a bit flamboyant, it's assumed that every homosexual is apparently a floppy handed, pompous person who loves rubbing and slapping their sexuality into the faces of others, when this is not true. It's amazing how many homosexuals are against the commercialisation of homosexuality, though the bigger picture actually shows Gay Pride doing more good than bad in an economic sense, just not very useful in a social sense for any small-minded people who experience it and assume the event has all to do with the way the people act. Another example of prejudice is with Indian nationals all own Indian Take-Aways and Mercedes, and have poor attitudes towards British nationals are other examples of mindless "Daily Mail" babble where the bad immediately over-takes the good, when it's a minority within a minority causing the problems.

These groups do influence the decisions the government makes, and many of these groups have militant characteristics. I am sick to death of hearing gay groups, womens rights groups moaning about things such as 'lack of gays/women in highly paid jobs' - I detest political correctness and thats just another tangaent of it. They can air their opinions, i'm fine with that. But when a government starts putting these groups (such as the unelected Muslim Council of Great Britain) at the forefront of policy it breeds nothing but hatred for minorities because people get ticked off by it constantly being rubbed in their face.

Again, more mindless babble about something I really do not care about as I do not disagree, when I made it quite clear in my first post that these groups will always exist and are not "always" malicious. Again, you rant about how they are when I don't care, the non-malicious ones are the ones that have the agenda to show the government what is wrong with hope to fix it. It's not constantly rubbed in your face, unless you purposely read the Daily Mail for your daily "hate" fix, that's when it is rubbed in your face because you're purposely looking to have it rubbed into your face :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

Groups will always exist, that's my point. You went on some boring un-needed rant about how they run the country, when that's not necessarily a bad thing anyway :/

Of course they will always exist, and my point has never been and is still not (although you seem determined to make it out) that groups should not exist. I am simply saying that these groups have far too much influence on government and have militant traits to them. As a muslim woman on the news once said, who are the Muslim Council of Great Britain? - she never elected them, she never appointed them to advise the government on her behalf so why on earth are the government falling head over heels to cater to what the MCOGB wants?

Infact, groups like this have changed the way we deal with certain events that the government paste over quite alot :/ You say unelected like they directly run the country, when they do not and that every group has an agenda to run the country, when they do not. Intervention from a third party isn't a necessary bad, look at how the media has shown the government up for being money hungry and useless when tackling problems and intervention from the public. Mums (usually) and family members who have made groups in protest of the war show the government up as being unaware with what happens in the war zone is another example of a group which shows no malice towards the country, infact alot of people agree with them saying the lack of supplies and poor treatment is appauling. Again, you narrow-mindedly focus on malicious groups, and assume all intervention groups are malicious, when this. is. not. the. case. and seems to be absent minded Daily Mail babble, where any minority should not exist, and that apparently Stephen Gately died because he was gay (mega lols towards the Mail for that shocker).

Thats all very well, so why is this government so eager to cater for its minority groups but not groups such as the Stop the War coalition who have quite mainstream support. There shouldn't even be a group for something like lack of military equipment because that should be there, no questions asked.

On the Daily Mail, Jan Moir did not say that and as far as I can remember I read it myself. There was nothing remotely homophobic about that article and she clearly stated (from what I remember) that dying in the same hotel room while your boyfriend and another man have sex isn't the greatest way to die. - I totally agree with that, not a nice death is it. She did not say all homosexuals should die or that Steph Gately deserved to die because he was gay, so do not make that up.

And it's the absent minded, dimwitted Daily Mail and other daft newspapers and small minded people who seem to believe that ALL members of any minority are the same. Just because Gay Pride, one of the countries most random events (not useless, just random) is a bit flamboyant, it's assumed that every homosexual is apparently a floppy handed, pompous person who loves rubbing and slapping their sexuality into the faces of others, when this is not true. It's amazing how many homosexuals are against the commercialisation of homosexuality, though the bigger picture actually shows Gay Pride doing more good than bad in an economic sense, just not very useful in a social sense for any small-minded people who experience it and assume the event has all to do with the way the people act. Another example of prejudice is with Indian nationals all own Indian Take-Aways and Mercedes, and have poor attitudes towards British nationals are other examples of mindless "Daily Mail" babble where the bad immediately over-takes the good, when it's a minority within a minority causing the problems.

I read the Daily Mail and I also read its website comments from its reader. I can tell you right now that the paper and its readers are not against homosexuality and do not think that all gays are into pride marches and so forth. Any genuine homophobic comments on the Daily Mail website always have a few hundred red arrows or so. As usual you have ran (like others) out of anything worthwhile to say to me, but go on to attack the Daily Mail.

On the Indian nationals, what on earth are you on about. The Daily Mail has never attacked Indian Nationals and you know fully well that the assumption that all Indians own a takeaway is a sterotype. Sterotypes will always be around. Do you now see yourself as some left wing student determined to 'break down barriers' aka PC talk.

Sterotypes will always be around, yet again you are trying to link something totally not true to the Daily Mail. The vast majority of the British people do not believe in sterotypes anyway, so again, do not treat the people like they are so stupid they they cannot make up their own minds and follow the Daily Mail for what to do next (especially when the Mail hasn't even done the things you are accusing it of!).

Again, more mindless babble about something I really do not care about as I do not disagree, when I made it quite clear in my first post that these groups will always exist and are not "always" malicious. Again, you rant about how they are when I don't care, the non-malicious ones are the ones that have the agenda to show the government what is wrong with hope to fix it. It's not constantly rubbed in your face, unless you purposely read the Daily Mail for your daily "hate" fix, that's when it is rubbed in your face because you're purposely looking to have it rubbed into your face.

I have made it clear throughout this discussion that I have never said groups will not exist and I don't believe groups should be banned anyway. I have also made it quite clear that I agree with these groups right to speak, but I do not agree with militant groups advising the government on policy and the government listening to these groups as though they represent the minority, when they do not.

On the Daily Mail, again ran out of things to say so you have a go at the paper. The Daily Mail is the second/third best selling paper in this country and the vast majority of the British people are not stupid, therefore the Mail is not what you are making it out to be and neither is the Daily Express which also follows similar storylines.

Extreme equality creates extreme hatred, and thats what these papers are saying and thats what happens. I agree with them and so do a lot of other people (judging by sales figures when compared to left-wing papers such as the Guardian) so do not try and claim that opinions like mine against militant-in-your-face homosexuality are those of the Mail which I have chosen to believe.

You have twisted nearly everything I have said in this discussion, and as shown by your attack on the Mail (on which the stuff you have said isn't true anyway) you have ran out of things to say.